Blue, mon chien d'Australie

Just saw this tonight -- it was the opening film for this year's Berlin Berlinale. Went with my 8-yr. old daughter and two friends, one adult, one 14-yr. old, and we all enjoyed ourselves. It's a basic coming-of-age film -- not particularly out-of-the ordinary in terms of genre, but well-done, professional and very likable. Some good writing, good characters, beautiful Western Australian locations, and Phoenix -- the dog lead -- is just great. The film was recommended for 8 & up at the Berlinale, and I thought it worked well for my daughter. The film also hints at a few more thorny issues -- colonialism, abandonment, adult relations -- but also manages to keep the basic Boy meets Dog story at the center. For me it was a welcome relief to watch a good-quality live-action children's film, rather than another animated one.

The scene cuts in this were really strange, one of the first things I noticed. They just didn't seem to flow and made the movie feel choppy? The acting in this movie was very subpar which really surprised me? When I saw the cast I thought I was in for a treat but no? The jokes seemed very forced and fell flat nearly every time. It almost felt like people from overseas trying to write Aussie "jokes". I didn't understand the supernatural aspect of this movie, I assume that bit was just the older Mike trying to spook his son maybe. But it just didn't seem to make sense and felt out of place (again). The ending was genuinely sad but I couldn't help but feel the whole time watching it "I know you're just trying to make me feel the same thing I felt in the first" so it just didn't do the same for me.

But my main annoyance with this movie was Red Dog. In the 1st Red Dog, Red (or blue I guess) always seemed to have a place, his presence pushed the movie along and brought people together. His presence in the movie made sense and brought together all the central conflicts and helped resolve them.

In Red Dog 2, Blues presence does nothing but provide a cute face. This movie was honestly just a coming of age movie and you could have removed the dog and nothing would really change? His presence really did nothing to push the movie along and it wasn't until nearly the end that he actually did something. Also in this movie Blues presence makes barely any impact on anyone but Mike. In the 1st he connected with everyone he came into contact with (even the "evil" cat!), but in this, nothing? It was just bizarre. Look I'm not going to be entirely negative. This is a perfectly watchable movie, I would by no means walk out of it and I had a pretty enjoyable time watching it. As a film by itself, it's fine. Just compared to the first movie you can't help but see all the downfalls about this film.

Red Dog was a beautiful, emotionally moving, incredible tribute to a real dogs undying loyalty. I actually cry thinking about that movie I'm not even joking. In fact in the opening scene when you see the devastating montage of the first I legitimately started bawling just remembering it with the music. Red Dog: True Blue just doesn't contain that same magic that tugs at the heart strings. You can tell it's desperatley trying to do that but just falls flat and seems like a typical cash grab. I feel the director and writers genuinely tried to live up to the former magic but let's be honest, you can't beat the first and I tend to go by this rule with movies, if it's not broke don't try to fix it.

Five years after Red Dog proved to be a smash hit at the Australian box office, the eponymous red kelpie is leaping back onto the silver screen, ready to win over holiday audiences once again in the sequel Red Dog: True Blue. Set immediately before the events of the first film, the story this time around is a coming of age story about a young boy who, after being sent to live with his grandfather in the West Australian outback, has a chance encounter with Red Dog that blossoms into a one of a kind friendship.

Much like the first one, the film is a throwback to an old-fashioned type of family entertainment, before animal features involved CGI talking heads and loud and noisy special effects took front stage in lieu of genuine heart. It's only let down by its over eagerness to replicate what made the first film a big hit, that it often feels like it's lagging behind. It devotes a fair bit of the opening to replaying scenes from the first film, this time through the perspective of a middle-aged man sitting in a theatre watching the film with his children. We see his red, teary eyes glued to the screen, clearly touched by the story that has unfolded, which afterwards inspires him to recount his own childhood encounter with the dog. This meta moment feels a little bit like the sequel kissing its own butt for lack of a better expression. As a framing device, it's effective, but it can't shake off the shameless feeling that it's trying to coax audiences into remembering how teary they may have felt themselves after the first film, in case they forgot in the intervening years. It only sets up the sequel for failure as True Blue never manages to recreate this emotional punch, even when it desperately tries to turn on the waterworks once again towards the end.

While this brings the film down a notch, wedged between these scenes is a film of comparable quality. It's light, breezy and frequently funny, with some mild third act drama, when a bush fire encroaches on the grandfather's cattle farm, adding some excitement to the affable proceedings. When a detour into Aboriginal mysticism threatens to veer into hokey territory, the film wisely strays away from any heavy-handed depictions, maintaining a light touch throughout.

Verdict: Even though lightning doesn't exactly strike twice with True Blue, it still offers a solid piece of family entertainment that's replete with heart and a good-natured sense of humour, even if it won't win you over quite the same.

6.5/10

I feel bad having to give only a five rating as the lead character was a young person who acted his heart out and did so well but the movie doesn't deserve a higher ranking. I would have enjoyed it ever so much more if it didn't have the feel of movie-making by numbers: we must have some homosexual characters, we must knock Christians (this time mission nuns), we must have mystical Aboriginals etc... political correctness will be the death of good story telling. There is nothing wrong with each of these individually but it felt contrived as if the director had to get them on screen somehow.

And as much as I love stories about dogs I felt this one tried to milk that good will too much. The dog chasing the plane when the boy leaves, it was all too much. Maybe I would give it a higher rating if it hadn't been called Red Dog as it felt like a blatant cashing-in on that crazily enjoyable film.

This wasn't a story about the dog it was a story about a boy becoming a man. Great scenery, great acting and great dog it just didn't come together as a good story.

The original Red Dog is a 9/10 film for me, an iconic movie so any further films have a tough act to follow but I think True Blue does well. It's a different take on it, an original story that explores the origins and whilst its not a classic like Red Dog, it's a good film in its own right. I liked all the characters, I liked that its somewhat simple and I just like the story. You can't have enough Outback Australia and Red Dog. I definitely recommend it as good entertainment.